WIDESPREAD MATCH FIXING IN PAST 10 YEARS INCLUDING GRAND SLAM WINNERS!

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35319202

Thoughts?

I don't think the article does enough to distinguish between match fixing and the use of inside information to game the system. Imagine, for example, you have a young player about to play a match in the middle of nowhere in November, with no implications for the WTF or anything other than his ranking through the off-season. That young player has an injury and wants to go home. But his entourage encourages him to just go, and if he feels anything, just retire the match with an injury and collect your 6-figure guarantee to show up. The kid wants to go home to his mama's cooking, but he can't say know to grown-@$$ men who have committed their livelihoods to his career (which they of course remind him of every day with photos of his daughters new ice skates that cost $300, and her first day at a prestigious private school that costs $1,000 a month).

So the kids goes and plays and retires the match after 20 minutes - no harm no foul, and they offered me the guarantee so I took it.

Meanwhile, an unscrupulous member of his entourage, gets in touch with someone who gets in touch with someone who has a Betfair account, and tells him the background, and tells him the kid will retire in the first set, and to put him down for 20% of the action. This is all unbeknownst to the player, who's just being a good kid, but someone has cashed in on inside information concerning his injury and likelihood of retiring the match, and 5 years later the kid is accused of match fixing because of strange betting patterns. And his "entourage" the coach has moved on to marrying a beautiful but useless female tennis player who makes more money modeling than she does on the court, the masseuse now works for the ATP tour, and his cook has opened his own restaurant.

And the kid gets banned.

I'm not saying that's what happened here, but there is a difference between match fixing and inside information betting, and this allegation mixes to the two.

match fixing can be mitigated to a large extent by making tennis more rewarding, financially, for those out of the top 100. the majority of the prize money is concentrated on the top 50. why wouldn't a player making barely breaking even, not feel tempted at the easy money offered by fixers?

the ATP has failed abysmally at this.

coolpixel wrote:match fixing can be mitigated to a large extent by making tennis more rewarding, financially,  for those out of the top 100. the majority of the prize money is concentrated on the top 50. why wouldn't a player making barely breaking even,  not feel tempted at the easy money offered by fixers?

the ATP has failed abysmally at this.

Not according to Federer, who says you'd not stop the problem with more money because fundamentally it's down to the player.

More money won't stop a player who knows he isn't going to win the title from throwing something for extra money. People live up to their income.

yes agreed. look we will never root out fixing in any sport..where there is a financial opprtunity there is a willing participant. however I think even Federer agrees that lesser ranked players should be paid more. I do think the prize money at the top can be capped or even reduced.

no one's going to boycott a GS just because it now pays a few hundred grand less for winning.

Money should be trickling down from the slams to the challengers a lot more than it does to me.
It might sound like rewarding mediocrity, but its an investment, the big tournies are giving their new top match stars of the future a means to keep in the sport and develop better.

I agree, the point was just that it won't impact the betting scandals.

temporary21 wrote:Money should be trickling down from the slams to the challengers a lot more than it does to me.
It might sound like rewarding mediocrity, but its an investment, the big tournies are giving their new top match stars of the future a means to keep in the sport and develop better.

It is trickling down though- the players council worked hard a few years ago to push for higher prize money in challengers/futures, and early round ATP's.

One of my USTA teammate has a son who is playing the Challenger tournies full time. Frankly- the kid will never make it beyond that, but he has a few small sponsorships that cover his expenses to travel and the price money he earned last year- is a really nice living for just about anyone. On top of that- he gets to visit incredible places all over the world.. It's really not a bad gig at all.

The Italians claiming Djokovic threw a match to Santoro, Which he's denied already.

TRuffin wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Money should be trickling down from the slams to the challengers a lot more than it does to me.
It might sound like rewarding mediocrity, but its an investment, the big tournies are giving their new top match stars of the future a means to keep in the sport and develop better.

It is trickling down though- the players council worked hard a few years ago to push for higher prize money in challengers/futures, and early round ATP's.  

One of my USTA teammate has a son who is playing the Challenger tournies full time. Frankly- the kid will never make it beyond that, but he has a few small sponsorships that cover his expenses to travel and the price money he earned last year- is a really nice living for just about anyone.    On top of that- he gets to visit incredible places all over the world..  It's really not a bad gig at all.  

That's pretty cool. I knew they were pushing for it. I think we would all like to see it more, given how much the prize money gets pushed up, perhaps like the top 5 performers in challengers get a bonus, to try and push them up. Of course that might already be happening, I know they have a challenger WTF now...

I do see the point though, you can weed out all match fixers. Some people are under pressure, they may not live in as safe a country, plus it can be a personality type thing, some guys like the buzz I guess. Plus you could never offer enough money to compete with what dodgy betting syndicates could give.

So Djoko barking on BBC about match fixing a few days ago, how he is honest, now its him who got corrupted?

Match in question is Paris Masters 2007.

Wherever is a Circus, Djoko is the main clown

Jahu wrote:So Djoko barking on BBC about match fixing a few days ago, how he is honest, now its him who got corrupted?

I don't for a second doubt many of the top guys will cheat in other ways- in fact I am certain that they do- but match fixing is just not something I see a Djokovic or other top top guy doing. Many forms of cheating which we don't talk about here can truly benefit an athlete in his career and help rake in more millions-- this match fixing stuff is piddly. Even as a young up and comer- someone with Djoko, Nadal, or Federers ability knows they are going to be multi millionaires and have legit agents,managers.... you would have to be insane to risk that for $50,000 thrown set.

Funny thing is I vividly remember the match! Novak had a pretty stupid looking beard at the time and santoro had a terrible t shirt

TRuffin, in 2007 Djoko was being financed by Serbian State Social Found (facts still being investigated at local veg market), so he needed money.

Who said $50K anyway? Could be 200K cash, plus 10% on overall winnings at obviously these big betting companies that have infested and ruined sport for last 10 years.

I mean one only has to watch Sky Sports for 2 hours and of 100 adverts, 50 are Betting companies, and 50 are Pay Day Loan companies, I guess Betting survives from people who take loans at Wonga poor souls.

Also stop defending Djoko, don't ruin my 2016 as it has started good, take a hit man, punch him sometimes    

temporary21 wrote:Funny thing is I vividly remember the match! Novak had a pretty stupid looking beard at the time and santoro had a terrible t shirt

On what substance are you on? Give me some.

The only thing vivid after 8 years is a Lotto win.

Nono Jahu Clonidine is the only pills for you sir

I don't have hypertension.

Wish I had your vivid memory though.

How's this 2016 going for you?

You gonna be more relaxed this year?



(Just to notify you that I had a beer with Adam and he told me to tell you that you should not Ban me this 2016, so remember it before you get high )

Jahu wrote:TRuffin, in 2007 Djoko was being financed by Serbian State Social Found (facts still being investigated at local veg market), so he needed money.

Who said $50K anyway? Could be 200K cash, plus 10% on overall winnings at obviously these big betting companies that have infested and ruined sport for last 10 years.

I mean one only has to watch Sky Sports for 2 hours and of 100 adverts, 50 are Betting companies, and 50 are Pay Day Loan companies, I guess Betting survives from people who take loans at Wonga poor souls.

Also stop defending Djoko, don't ruin my 2016 as it has started good, take a hit man, punch him sometimes    

lol- okay- I was going by the $50,000 number I keep seeing in these reports but didn't know the exact accusation against Djoko. Hope it's not true.

Try not be racist this year then, or it may be your last

Last what?

TRuffin wrote:

lol- okay-  I was going by the $50,000 number I keep seeing in these reports but didn't know the exact accusation against Djoko. Hope it's not true.

Truff, I think Djoko came up with this 50K, so he took a 0 off to not make those players who took 50K, feel bad and sold cheaply

I guess in Tennis only top 50 on ATP make money, all others are just floating by on sponsorship and living not so superstar, so lower ranked players are always at risk of being bought.

So it's been reported that Djokovic has a suspicious match, why? Suspicious betting patterns or something? is this the story? http://www.tuttosport.com/news/tennis/2016/01/18-7643247/tennis_bbc_rivela_sospetta_combine_rete_anche_in_italia/

Yes, thats the story.

Now, give us your balanced view

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/tennis/76099074/Novak-Djokovic-denies-report-that-2007-loss-to-Santoro-was-fixed

temporary21 wrote:Funny thing is I vividly remember the match! Novak had a pretty stupid looking beard at the time and santoro had a terrible t shirt

Temp, where is Djoko beard?


http://www.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/10137449/novak-djokovic-denies-italian-paper-claims-he-fixed-match-in-2007

Not so vivid are we?

Maybe he shaved during one of the changeovers?

That was it. He had it the Madrid masters before that. Shaved it for Paris. Never forget that ridiculous shirt though.
Amazing the things you remember from years ago. Probably because it was at the same tournies as fat Dave won them brilliantly

Who knows but I've seen no evidence against Djokovic at this point, it feels more like a slur. Plus he was a youngster then and he was in poor form and physical shape at the time and so the loss is more than plausible. Also he lost in straights, not following the pattern of a set and a break up before losing. I think he gets the benefit of the doubt for now unless anyone can produce any actual evidence, I mean where is this coming from?

Henman Bill wrote:Who knows but I've seen no evidence against Djokovic at this point, it feels more like a slur. Plus he was a youngster then and he was in poor form and physical shape at the time and so the loss is more than plausible. Also he lost in straights, not following the pattern of a set and a break up before losing. I think he gets the benefit of the doubt for now unless anyone can produce any actual evidence, I mean where is this coming from?

Spot on.

The media have a story and they want to make it as sensational as possible so throw a loss the world No.1 had many years ago and claim it was a fix. As Novak said you could make the same claim against ANY player in the sport losing a match you may have expected them to win.

Interesting comments from a lower ranked player:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35387619

Born Slippy wrote:Interesting comments from a lower ranked player:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35387619

So there are a couple of things they can do about this recurring theme, because most players involved in match fixing do so because they'll more money than playing to win: you can either increase the prize money at the smaller events (which is how the online betting houses got involved in the first place) or you can decrease the costs of playing the satellite tours.

I think the better alternative is regional satellite tours. The USTA and other local tennis associations/federations could sponsor a year-around local satellite tours and the ATP should give bonus points for the top 8 finishers of those tours to facilitate their migration to the ATP level. Keeping the tours local will mitigate the costs of travel and lodging, and players could split the costs of using the same coach (especially if they work for a federation) which would further reduce their costs. The events don't have to be elaborate or expensively produced, but it would eliminate the need to travel the world for months at a time with one coach/physio etc. per player, siphoning off winnings every step of the way.

Increasing the winnings of the satellite events which only change the calculus for match fixing (i.e. drive up the costs of fixing a match to the fixer) - reducing the cost will mitigate the desperation to make more described by Broady.

My take on the match fixing scandal...

http://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2016/01/match-fixing-this-will-get-messy.html

MMT1 wrote:My take on the match fixing scandal...

http://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2016/01/match-fixing-this-will-get-messy.html

I basically agree with your analysis of the inadequacies of the TIU, but unless I've missed something, I don't think everyone is 'convicting' Davydenko, nor do I think that suspicion of him is necessarily unjustified.  The facts are that things look v. bad for his opponent's integrity given the text messages, there is also something problematic about the account holders that the investigators contacted including threats of violence made to a betfair employee to stop the investigation.  The missing piece of the jigsaw is unknown because Davydenko did not disclose his mobile telephone records.  

In the circumstances I don't think you can acquit him because he was discussing his injury with journalists any more than we can convict him because he did not co-operate.  It's quite possible that Davydenko and his opponent stitched the whole thing up and DD agreed that he would lay a false trail by openly discussing his injury so that they could all point to that as explaining the betting patterns.  What you can't do is criticise those for drawing firm conclusions on incomplete evidence (which I think casts suspicion, whilst acknowledging that's not the same as proof) and then do much the same yourself to exonerate him.

Bottom line is, we don't know enough to be sure so have to rest on innocent if not proven guilty, and the TIU have not shown themselves very willing to press as hard as they should in relation to that or other activities.

BTW - describing someone as innocent until proven guilty is not the same as saying that someone is above suspicion - just the person who suspects cannot get carried away by overstating the strength of his suspicion.

The Davydenko case has been brought up and discussed, not only by the BuzzFeed report, but by the media covering the AO, as well as in the blogosphere, and there is no evidence linking Davydenko to any Betfair account holders. None - that is important to establish.

Davydenko provided his own mobile phone, but they asked for the phones of his wife, brother and father-in-law, which they rightfully refused. They asked for Vassallo Arguello's phone and it revealed 82 problematic texts (most of which he attempted to delete). But they didn't bother to pursue him - they said they would, but never did. The case against him died when the case against Davydenko (which was no case to begin with) died, but it shouldn't have.

To claim that the refusal of Davydenko's family to turn over their phones - when Davydenko's own phone revealed nothing - is akin to scuttling the investigation is rich, particularly when his opponent's phone revealed a trove of suspicious texts which they refused to pursue. Why the focus on Davydenko?

I think your theory that Davydenko could have intentionally set up plausible deniability by discussing his injuries with the press, and other players, and tour physios, and the umpire, and his team and his wife...is self defeating and really a stretch - for such an elaborate plan, wouldn't there be a record of this? Like there was with Vassallo-Arguello? No, the simplest explanation, is the most obvious and plausible: he has a big mouth and the Russian bettors took advantage.

This claim of a threat to a bet fair employee - I find that a dubious reason to DROP the investigation. If that threat were true, it would COMPEL them to pursue it because that is a worst case scenario and a definite loss of control that they would have to address. Otherwise, every other match fixer has their solution to a problematic investigation...just phone in an empty threat and it conveniently all goes away. No, that's not going to cut it.

The fact that Davydenko's injuries were publicly revealed before the match, as well as his discussion of them and his intention to retire captured by on-court microphones during it, provides a plausible and non-sinister explanation for the only bit of evidence against him in the entire investigation: the strange betting patterns. That is important, because the strange betting patterns forms the basis of their suspicion of other players (unnamed in the report), and if that is the case, then this is all much ado about nothing.

Interesting blog and discussion, but surely the fact that Davydenko is the one that retired means that suspicion is more likely to fall on him? If you are fixing and throwing matches, then any guilt has to fall on the loser, why should the winner even have been involved is kind of a mystery to me.

The fact that Davydenko's phone did not contain any suspicious texts etc proves nothing other than the fact that he is not a moron. He could quite easily have made arrangements in person, or with a cheap pay phone bought for cash and not registered to his name, and later thrown away.

The fact that he discussed his injury before the match does work to exonerate him, but what did he say exactly. If he said "I have a slightly stiff ankle but it should be fine" then such a comment would not have affected the odds greatly, and could be part of a set up.

Likewise the on court comments do work in his favour but could have been pre-arranged. What's the source here, have you seen a video? Does it look like he is making sure the comments are picked up, or what? I think you'd need to dig deeper into all of this.

Also, the investigators looking into this may know things we don't and can't, for example at what precise point (to the nearest minute) were certain bets placed and how does this correlate to the statements on court?

Bottom line - it is hard to make a strong case one way or the other on Davydenko based on what I've heard.

Henman Bill wrote:Interesting blog and discussion, but surely the fact that Davydenko is the one that retired means that suspicion is more likely to fall on him? If you are fixing and throwing matches, then any guilt has to fall on the loser, why should the winner even have been involved is kind of a mystery to me.

The fact that Davydenko's phone did not contain any suspicious texts etc proves nothing other than the fact that he is not a moron. He could quite easily have made arrangements in person, or with a cheap pay phone bought for cash and not registered to his name, and later thrown away.

The fact that he discussed his injury before the match does work to exonerate him, but what did he say exactly. If he said "I have a slightly stiff ankle but it should be fine" then such a comment would not have affected the odds greatly, and could be part of a set up.

Likewise the on court comments do work in his favour but could have been pre-arranged. What's the source here, have you seen a video? Does it look like he is making sure the comments are picked up, or what? I think you'd need to dig deeper into all of this.

Also, the investigators looking into this may know things we don't and can't, for example at what precise point (to the nearest minute) were certain bets placed and how does this correlate to the statements on court?

Bottom line - it is hard to make a strong case one way or the other on Davydenko based on what I've heard.

How is Davydenko supposed to prove a negative? That he had no contact with any match fixers? The proof of that is be the absence of evidence of contact. By you logic, he is guilty and must prove his innocence which is neither fair nor logical. You should read the links in the BuzzFeed report - they are very detailed as to what he said and to whom and when.

Your alternate theory, that this was planned months in advance with fake injury reports, etc. is very elaborate for a percentage of a couple hundred thousand pound bets - it doesn't make sense. It would be easier for him to take an appearance fee and default - he'd make more money with no risk. It's implausible, which aligns with the absence of evidence.

The theory that the investigators know more than they are letting on is convenient, but if you apply it, they could convict anyone of anything with the explanation in the absence of evidence - that's not a reason to suspect Davydenko. But for details of the betting patterns, I would again direct you to the LINKS in the BuzzFeed report - they are very specific. Read the links in the report, and you'll see that none of those betting patterns preclude the very public indications, by Davydenko, that he was injured, both before and during the match. The report of the on court information is as also in the linked reports.

I just find it terrible that there is an insistence that he prove his innocence - it doesn't convene with the evidence, and it's extremely unfair. If anyone should prove their innocence it's Vassallo Arguello (who tried to delete damning texts which were found and the report said would elicit ANOTHER investigation which was abandoned), not Davydenko.

Woah there MMT1 - we are both explicitly saying that we can't say he is guilty because we don't have the evidence to prove it.  We are also saying that he is not above suspicion, and such evidence as there is does not conclusively prove that he is innocent.

In other words, this episode leaves him with a bit of suspicion hanging over his head - life can be inconclusive and messy like that.  He doesn't need to prove his innocence because nobody's found him guilty - if he's worried that there is some suspicion hanging over his head he can do what he wants to dislodge it, but that's a matter for him and he doesn't seem very interested to take matters further than they already have been.  HB is right that if a match is to be fixed it takes both players to tango, the person who wins can't do it on his own, so if there is suspicion on the victorious opponent for the the match, there must be suspicion on the person who lost.  My theory as to the discussion of injury doesn't prove guilt, it merely indicates that you can't rely upon the injury as conclusive proof of innocence, because there is another explanation which is not inconsistent with him having cheated.

A major sports gambling website suspended betting on Sunday for a mixed doubles match at the Australian Open, raising suspicions of match fixing at one of the world’s most prestigious tennis tournaments.

Ahead of a first-round match pitting Lara Arruabarrena and David Marrero against Andrea Hlavackova and Lukasz Kubot, large amounts of money poured in on what would normally be an obscure contest, said Marco Blume, head of sportsbook at the website, Pinnacle Sports, one of the largest and most influential betting websites in the world.

Nearly all of the money, Blume said, came down for Hlavackova and Kubot, which he said was an indication that the match might be fixed.

Hlavackova and Kubot won, 6-0, 6-3. The first set lasted only 20 minutes.

MMT1 wrote:By you logic, he is guilty and must prove his innocence which is neither fair nor logical.  You should read the links in the BuzzFeed report - they are very detailed as to what he said and to whom and when.  

I just find it terrible that there is an insistence that he prove his innocence.

I never said or implied he is guilty, I dispute that.

I also dispute your comment that there is an insistence he prove his innocence. Neither myself, nor anyone else I see on the forum here or in the media, is insisting he prove his innocence.

You mean this article http://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket#.opdXzQZV8 as the one I should read the links?

barrystar wrote:Woah there MMT1 - we are both explicitly saying that we can't say he is guilty because we don't have the evidence to prove it.  We are also saying that he is not above suspicion, and such evidence as there is does not conclusively prove that he is innocent.

In other words, this episode leaves him with a bit of suspicion hanging over his head - life can be inconclusive and messy like that.  He doesn't need to prove his innocence because nobody's found him guilty - if he's worried that there is some suspicion hanging over his head he can do what he wants to dislodge it, but that's a matter for him and he doesn't seem very interested to take matters further than they already have been.  HB is right that if a match is to be fixed it takes both players to tango, the person who wins can't do it on his own, so if there is suspicion on the victorious opponent for the the match, there must be suspicion on the person who lost.  My theory as to the discussion of injury doesn't prove guilt, it merely indicates that you can't rely upon the injury as conclusive proof of innocence, because there is another explanation which is not inconsistent with him having cheated.

The suspicion is unfair because it is based on strange betting patterns only - nothing else. Those betting patterns can be explained by much of his testimony to the investigation concerning his injuries, which he discussed loosely with anyone who would listen, including doctors, physios, the other players, the press, the umpire, his brother/coach and his wife (the latter three during the match). To leave it at, he's not above suspicion, is really unfair to a guy who, as far as the evidence is concerned, just got injured and retired a match. The only evidences has a plausible explanation and there is no other evidence - for this the perception of his career is eternally clouded by the actions of others that have nothing to do with him. I just hate that.

BTW - it does not take two players to fix a result - one player can fix the result by retiring or intentionally losing or even just intentionally serving a double-fault on the first point, and the fix is on. My intention by bringing up Vassallo Arguello was only to point out the tepid and indifferent response of the ATP to his rather obvious evidence of match fixing (the text messages he attempted to delete before handing over the phone to investigators). That Vassallo Arguello showed strong indications of being a match fixer, doesn't mean that Davydenko fixed the match against him. Vassallo Arguello fixed other matches, and may have given information about Davydenko's injuries to bettors in their match, but I have to clarify that that still isn't evidence of match fixing by Davydenko.

I have a soft spot for Davydenko because I think his low popularity, combined with his high ranking, gave the ATP a low hanging fruit that they could have their cake and eat it too, and for me that's not fair to him. He was later cited for lack of effort code violation later that year in a match after serving a couple of double faults, which I felt was just unbelievable BS. Unfortunately for the ATP, there was no there there.

They should go after match-fixers, like Vassallo Arguello, like Potito Starace, like Daniele Bracciali - but not Davydenko.

I too had a soft sport for DD - who was an excellent player and one of the few who really knew how to play Nadal. I agree that the tour went for him as low hanging fruit.

The point remains that I disagree with you as to whether the suspicion is fair or unfair. I think it's fair for the reasons I gave. I don't think it clouds his career from my perspective, because I am entirely confident that for the most part, and certainly in the tournaments that mattered in the bigger picture and which interested me, he tried his guts out. He got to #3 or #4 and hung around there and won the WTF and a Masters or two without any massive weapons for Pete's sake.

As I said, I think you are wrongly elevating a 'not guilty' verdict, which was clearly justified and correct, to a 'completely exonerated and found innocent' verdict, which is a different and not so clearly justified. I don't think you can so easily dismiss strange betting patterns when DD was the loser, and I've already said why I think that there is a possible explanation for the injury discussion which is consistent with fixing - namely it does not negate the possibility of cheating.

I think we've gone as far as we can.

Okay, we'll agree to disagree - but let me leave you with this parting question concerning the only evidence against him (the betting patterns).

What's more plausible, in the absence of any evidence of contact with bettors:

1) That he planned this weeks in advance with fake discussions of his injuries, wiped his phone clean, then conspired with multiple unrelated/disconnected bettors simultaneously to earn 10-20% of their earnings for being in on the fix (when he could have taken his guarantee and retired - like he did - with NO risk of being caught match fixing), or

2) That he had a big mouth about his injuries (as he always has) before and during the match, it was picked up by bettors watching the match, who started betting heavily against him at the same time that he began discussing his problem and intent to retire with his entourage?

It seems to me the conjecture you reserve for the conclusion that the suspicion is legitimate is more elaborate and less likely than the facts pointing to the conclusion that the suspicion is unjust.

There, I'm done.

I read the report and all the links, lots of detail there.

I note that the betting market swung into a wild position before the match even started and that Betfair telephoned the ATP with concerns six minutes after the match started. What this means is that Davydenko's on court behaviour during the match including the fact that he was visibly demonstrating his injury and talking about it during the match and so on is not really relevant and is not evidence in favour of the argument that the match was not fixed.

However, that still leaves the question that the injury was known from his other match a couple of days before at the same tournament, and media discussion and discussion with his family. It is pretty clear that his injury status was known to people and so arguments of insider information rather than match fixing are plausible, however it does seem strange that the injury could have changed the odds so drastically, so it's understandable why an investigation was launched.

It's also worth nothing that Davydenko did have several first round defeats at tournaments just before.

Arguello it's worth noting, his opponent, has been involved in various other suspicious matches and does indeed look to be worthy of investigation in general (rather than for this specific match).

It's also worth reminding ourselves that even IF Davydenko did fix the match it's possible that he did so under threats to himself and his family (pure speculation) and lost it in the best interests of his family rather than because he is a bad/greedy person.

MMT1 wrote:Okay, we'll agree to disagree - but let me leave you with this parting question concerning the only evidence against him (the betting patterns).

What's more plausible, in the absence of any evidence of contact with bettors:

1) That he planned this weeks in advance with fake discussions of his injuries, wiped his phone clean, then conspired with multiple unrelated/disconnected bettors simultaneously to earn 10-20% of their earnings for being in on the fix (when he could have taken his guarantee and retired - like he did - with NO risk of being caught match fixing), or

2) That he had a big mouth about his injuries (as he always has) before and during the match, it was picked up by bettors watching the match, who started betting heavily against him at the same time that he began discussing his problem and intent to retire with his entourage?

It seems to me the conjecture you reserve for the conclusion that the suspicion is legitimate is more elaborate and less likely than the facts pointing to the conclusion that the suspicion is unjust.

There, I'm done.

We are not judges - we don't have to decide whether he did it or not beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probability - although I accept that on the evidence I have read he'd probably win on either hurdle.  It is notillegitimate as a fair-minded observer who is not required to decide a case formally to believe that there are still unanswered questions which leave a suspicion lingering.  Your scenario (1) is highly implausible I agree, a more likely explanation if he cheated was having a pay as you go phone which he threw away and that he took advantage of the fact that he had an injury knowing that it would be cover for a retirement and made sure that this was known about beforehand.  He was well known as a player whose overall earnings were small because he did not attract big off-court endorsements, so he played masses of tournaments to increase his on-court income during his short career.  That does not prove anything of itself, but his profile matched someone who could have been tempted by easy money for throwing the odd match on the fringes of his substantial schedule.  Couple that with the weird betting profile - including before the match started as HB says - the response of the betters when investigated, and the evidence of his opponent's conduct, and it seems to me that to say that an inability to make a case stick means that his involvement in the match is above all suspicion is naive.  If I were in the TIU at the time, the experience of that match would mean that I'd have half an eye on his results for the future.  Keeping an eye on someone does not mean assuming they are guilty until proven innocent, and I think that there was an unfair over-reaction when he was accused of not trying in a subsequent match - he was a soft target as player who was not particularly popular.  The fact that this was not fair does not mean that having a suspicion is unfair.

The guy's a set up against a relative no hoper and the other guy is still getting hammered in the betting market?

These people didn't just have a vague idea that a slightly limping Davydenko might retire if they're very lucky, they knew he was going to retire.

You can come up with as many far-fetched 'innocent' explanations as you want, these people KNEW Davydenko was going to lose that match, it wasn't a guess. It wouldn't have even been a hearsay situation with somebody overhearing his intentions cause he was winning and conceivably 10-15 mins away from finishing the match at one point.

As usual Jahu posts a few slurs based on nothing but his crazed delusions. The guy had his wisdom teeth pulled and didn't plractice before the match while still being on medication from the oral surgeries. Jahu as usual is a liar and a fool. djokovic did not need money at Paris 2007 he had won Miami, and had just had a huge payday reaching the USO final. He was 19 and number three in the world already set for multi millions. This idea he was desperate for cash at THE END of 2007 is a fantastical assertion similar to Jahu's supposedly prodigious status as a lothario. These fantasies of Jahu are at their most intense when he sits in front of a keyboard and monitor. Unfortunately, unlike his other fantasies of his mythical conquest the results don't end up in a dirty sock or paper towels and we are forced to read his nightly emissions on the pages of this website. The idea that late in 07 Novak who had won the Miami masters, was three in the world, and just two months before had made a huge payday in the U S O final was hard up for money is just a lie to create motive for this crime that doesn't exist.

By the way Santoro had the best response saying he didn't believe the accusation and stating that he had beaten something like 15 different players ranked at 1 in his career.